1920.] Numismatic Supplement No. XXXIV. 237 
prove that the orthographic innovation which he had introduced 
did not fail to appeal to the understanding cf his descendants. 
I may add that the name of the town is written in the 
new way only by the authors of the Badishahnama (Bibl. Ind., 
Text. I. i, 215, 216, 230, 409; I, ii, 8,9, 71; H, 115, 116, 121, 
134, 206, 236, 247, 319, 412). ‘Alamgirnama (1bid., 126, 142, 
166, 219, 220, 759, 765, 848), and the Maasir-i-‘ Alamgirt (Lbid., 
42, 86, 132 and 209 : 
It is perhaps necessary to add a word of warning. Khafi 
Khan’s words do not mean that the form ¢ was first intro- 
duced or invented in the reign of Shah Jahan. All that he 
really says is that he was the first to set the seal of Imperial 
sanction on that mode of spelling, and that he ordered the 
name to be so written in the State Records. 
* “As a matter of fact, Xp occurs occasionally in manu- 
scripts of undoubted antiquity, ¢.9. Colonel Hamilton’s MS. of 
the Ain-i-Akbari (see Bibl. Ind. Text. I. 27, footnote 8), of 
which the exact date is not known, but which, in Blochmann’s 
opinion, was “ written in the reign of Akbar or that of Jahan- 
Gita s556 Bula “UES gh Og ee oe St Oe 
So90,8 lay leo » cohe= 9 Sout oys ogS abale loa pf gles sy 
cle Us WEL, Leo y ahah opr jy 2°! S yee olf jy oe 
ew y + 9 Gy 
“ Sarhind, which has been altered also to Sahrind, was 
formerly included in the Samana [division]. Sulfan Firoz 
Shah separated it [from Samana} and constituted it a Sarkar 
by itself, and built there a fortress called Firazabad. In 
these days (lit. to-day) Sahrind is a famous and well-known place 
on account of its beauty, purity [of the air] and its charming 
gardens.” (Third Jqlim). 
Junagadh, January, 1918, S. H. HopivatLa. 
SHERGARH. 
Two early rupese of Akbar from a mint named Shergarh - 
are known. They are dated 964 and 966 A.H. Shergarh 
‘* Dawar Khan, the Faujdar of Sahrand”’ is mentioned (Journal of the 
Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1911, p. 453), and the name is clearly written 
Dine in the original. Ibid., p. 450, 1. 18. This goes somo wey towards 
corroborating Khafi Khan’s statement. 
